|
Brand had a run-in with Fox News as well (another piece of the Murdoch empire), so it's not surprising to see The Sun target him.
Rich people and their pissing matches, amiright?
|
|
|
|
Governments are like parents. When they're good they can make life alot easier for everyone but when they're bad, well, we have history to instruct us. The problem we have nowadays is that even if good people get into a position to govern, they don't have the power. That power has been usurped by mulitnational interests who have found an end around the democratic process and have taken the sovereignty from the people who fought for it. Indeed, they now instigate the wars when it suits them in their pursuit of the new world order. The banks are only one of the vehicles in this process but perhaps the most critical to correct. The best way to correct the banks is to compete with their currency and the direction taken so far is the right one but widespread, global adoption is critical and mechanisms must be in place to assure that this cryptocoin does not just become another evil. I believe this is achievable and have suggested a current coin on which to model after or build upon. Here are the features this new coin should have:
1. Limits on accumulation.
2. High efficiency for both transactions and network loads.
3. A useful function like maintaining a cryptographic library of all the worlds documents.
4. An unerasable audit trail of transactions and a built in mechanism for public policy decision making.
These are the top priority characteristics for a currency that can fix the world. There are many ways to mess these up in their implementation but if done properly, humanity can be saved many of its currently manufactured ills. It should be obvious to most reading here why the feature list above is critical but if anyone needs a clarification of what these features will address, the discussion herein is likely to bring them to light. I will certainly do my part.
It seems to me limits on accumulation prevent it from being widely adopted. If as a technical limitation there is a limit to how much wealth you can have accumulated in the coin, why would you even bother with it in the first place? |
|
|
|
Does this mean he got was able to withdraw and keep 5 btc on account of the exploit?
Yes. He had used the exploit to get somewhere in the order of over 30 BTC in profit. He did withdraw his original deposit, plus 5 BTC as a bounty for finding the exploit. Had he wanted, he would have been allowed to withdraw up to 25 BTC which was the contents of the hot wallet. But being a decent guy he didn't even make an attempt to do so, something that I am very grateful for. I wouldn't call stealing 5 btc a decent action, or one who does it a decent person, just because he could have taken more. Stealing is stealing. The guy stole from you, and if you had investors yet, it would have been stealing from them. I understand you're grateful he didn't clean you out, but I'm still puzzled by your gushing praise for someone who is a thief. I was in the chat at the time, here's a chatlog. As you can see at 10:47 UTC foo was up >15 BTC and Ryan came online more than 2h later. He could've just withdrawn with a few clicks, but he didn't. He also send a support message to Ryan that explains how the exploit works, which allowed him to patch it fast. I still don't get it. I would've assumed anybody in his position would clean the hot wallet. Chatlog link doesn't load anything. Is it me or the link? (Also, someone posted a chatlog earlier, is it the same as that?) I think the juxtaposition of reactions on this forum is interesting. Website owner steals investor funds but selectively refunds to some people, this forum is doxing people left and right, calling ex-girlfriends of people who may or may not be involved, etc. But some guy steals through an exploit and also doesn't take everything, and he's heralded as a saint. What a commendable chap that he only stole some of the money!Could the perception of these two people be any more different? If this guy was such a good dude, he wouldn't have taken any of the money. He would have notified Ryan of the exploit so it could be patched and maybe asked for a reward, not help himself to it. Just my opinion though. I wouldn't go praising someone cuz they only stole a little bit. |
|
|
|
Pick a disaster... Hindenburg, Titanic, 9/11, JFK... There's a Titanic conspiracy theory? This ought to be interesting... It started the World War, insurance fraud, the Federal Reserve was under attack by some rich patrons on the boat...on and on.. Those are great! (And by great, I mean terrible.) First, I've never heard of any of them. Second, the Titanic sank in 1912? Years before WWI started. Not sure how that one makes any sense at all. The Federal Reserve wasn't founded yet either, so that one doesn't make sense either. I particularly like the insurance fraud one though. That's fantastic! |
|
|
|
but you're a respectful poster and I enjoy our back and forth because of it.
Well, most of the time: or a link to promote some exchange website as a signature with cute stars around it to make it look like a two-bit Vegas casino begging for sluts playing their slots...  ... The More You Know...  Hey, gots to get paid like the authors of those articles you're always posting! |
|
|
|
Headline: Liberal Blowhard Russell Brand Throws A Hissy Fit After Being Confronted About The Price Of His Home Newsworthy Factor: 0 Journalistic Integrity: 0 Likelihood conservatives repost: 100 Ooooh, this "article" even comes with a solicitation to donate, so they can subject an ever-increasing audience to their very worth-reading journalism! How long until The Blaze picks up this hot story? ------------ Conservative blogspam aside, I actually did learn something from your post. I was previously unfamiliar with the term gauche caviar, and now I'm a little bit smarter! As long as you reply to all my posts I am happy . I will make sure to serve you a blaze mike browning with extra click baits on top, compliment of the chief, next time... BUT... ... That is why I never block anyone and make sure to be polite with everyone here because you never know when and from whom you learn something new. Of course I have a political bias but I post a lot of links from sources I despise more often than you would believe. Check my posts. I only get people from reacting to links with a conservative bias, never from links with a leftist bias. Funny how that work. Google and adsense and what not make sure those people make money, does not matter whom. I don't make money posting here. Not yet anyway. I may make money in the future. But now not even a link for some bitcoin gambling sites or a link to promote some exchange website as a signature with cute stars around it to make it look like a two-bit Vegas casino begging for sluts playing their slots... ... The More You Know...  We have very different world views, but you're a respectful poster and I enjoy our back and forth because of it. Plus, I don't know where the really good conservative troll bait is on the internet, and you post it here so I don't have to go looking for it. |
|
|
|
This is a weird departure from standard practice. Any speculation as to why they would deliberately do this?
A convoluted form of entrapment. I am willing to bet they target "vape" sites primarily. The FDA has shown itself to be little more than a tool of selective enforcement designed to protect industry monopolies. Right, but they were already engaging in entrapment by using people posing as minors. Now they're actually using minors. I'm just wondering why they changed their entrapment program. It seems like a meaningless change, but it was deliberate, so there has to be a reason for it. Pure power wants more power. Think of it as Political Gravity.... You see it all the time, no matter the scale, the number of people, were they live, etc... I subscribe to Occam's Razor, but the conclusion still has to make sense. I don't see how using minors to buy cigarettes plays into your political gravity theory, or increases power for the FDA. I was wondering if using minors in the sting somehow allows them to push for steeper penalties, but that makes little sense as well. But for as little sense as that makes, I can't currently think of any other reason they would be doing this. |
|
|
|
Does this mean he got was able to withdraw and keep 5 btc on account of the exploit?
Yes. He had used the exploit to get somewhere in the order of over 30 BTC in profit. He did withdraw his original deposit, plus 5 BTC as a bounty for finding the exploit. Had he wanted, he would have been allowed to withdraw up to 25 BTC which was the contents of the hot wallet. But being a decent guy he didn't even make an attempt to do so, something that I am very grateful for. I wouldn't call stealing 5 btc a decent action, or one who does it a decent person, just because he could have taken more. Stealing is stealing. The guy stole from you, and if you had investors yet, it would have been stealing from them. I understand you're grateful he didn't clean you out, but I'm still puzzled by your gushing praise for someone who is a thief. |
|
|
|
The Blaze.  Journalistic integrity at its finest. The blaze tried to mike brown you too? Haha!  No, I'm just not high on blogspam (on either side) that takes a story and repackages it into inflammatory material to feed a particular base's rigid mindset. The Blaze is certainly one of those. The left has their share of them too. They're just obnoxious articles that add very little, if any, value to what are important conversations. There was a time when the news was about informing people, now its just about marketing and clicking on ads. The news outlets will print anything to get you to look. I agree. Media is a business, and the purpose of owning a business is to make money. Any cable media is no longer in the business of reporting news, but spinning news to press their viewers' preconceived rage points. Then there is another step to the extreme in websites like The Blaze that really whore themselves out to get you to click that link. You can tell how much integrity one of these 'news' sites has by how often they use subjective adjectives in their headlines. For example, "Absolutely Disgusting" might be something that appears in a headline about the behavior of a black shopper to get conservative minded folks to click through and see for themselves just how disgusting some people are. (See the previous Blaze link if you want to see for yourself!) The problem is these headlines work. They make a ton of money. That's why there's so many of them. And that is why we have a brain and sort out or believe what we want and reject what we do not want. I would copy paste a few lines and and always give credit by adding a link to the original source where I saw that information. In this case you could bypass the blaze and just watch the video while getting some context. Then not trusting the blaze you could google/duck duck go/ bling that youtube video and read the behind the scene of that video. Maybe there was an personal history between the cop and the dude on the video being "mike browned", before. Obviously most people do not care and are too lazy to do too much research and prefer to trust the main stream media, the one that makes the most money with the most advertising. That is their choice and is perfectly acceptable too If people were interested in unbiased information, something like The Blaze wouldn't exist. People don't want that though. They want pieces that make them feel superior to groups they view as inferior, so they can post them wherever and rant about how terrible some groups are for doing or thinking [insert racial or political stereotype here]. The Blaze is worst than most because it foments division and hatred by playing on racial undertones, otherwise there'd by no reason to point out the race of people they're writing about in the headlines. 'Check out the disgusting way this black shopper acted around this cop' or whatever the headline was. The point isn't that some guy was disrespectful to a cop, it's that he's black and he's acting in a way you should hate. The headline tells you that much. My question is, if you know a site is a disgraceful click monger and their presentation of information is so biased and serves no legitimate news function, why do you post them? Even if, as you say, people have brains and can decide for themselves if a source is worthy? If you're posting it and saying 'Decide for yourself if this is relevant information,' then it just looks like you're posting things you agree approve of. And in the case of this specific Blaze story, the story trying to appeal to people on the basis of 'look at this ridiculous black guy' is what's disgusting. Nor Fox News, yada yada. Yawn. |
|
|
|
I'm really impressed by the person who abused this bug. Not only due to the complexity of the exploit, but the fact he only took 5 of the 25 BTC in the hot wallet. He likely could have slowly abused the bug leading the eventual shutdown of MP, but instead was a class act. I'm really thankful for that and working on better security measures so I won't need to rely on the kindness of strangers as much.
Does this mean he got was able to withdraw and keep 5 btc on account of the exploit? |
|
|
|
Pick a disaster... Hindenburg, Titanic, 9/11, JFK... There's a Titanic conspiracy theory? This ought to be interesting... |
|
|
|
I agree with him on some things, he has tweeted before something like.... when you are poor you cant talk about inequality because you appear jealous, when you are rich and talk about inequality you are a hypocrite. At what point can any of us talk about inequality? - great point no?
This is a good point. But the difference I think is that Brand isn't merely talking about inequality; he's indicting the current system. If he believes the system is not just and unfairly harms the poor, then the perception of him living lavishly suggests that while he's willing to talk about the inherent unfairness, he's not willing to give up the rewards the system has unfairly bestowed upon him. That undermines his critique of the system in my opinion. I'm not unsympathetic to the idea that there is inherent inequality in the way the US capitalist system is set up (crony capitalism), but that's not the same argument Brand is making. Or if it is, he's doing it in such a partisan and confrontational manner that I dismiss it entirely as typical class warfare rather than well-reasoned critique. But articles like the one posted aren't for intelligent consideration or designed to spark a constructive dialogue on the topic. If the headline doesn't give it away, just read the comment section on it and you see the only reason it was posted was to provide a place for like-minded conservatives to have a place to circlejerk all over some "libtard" so the website owner can collect his advertising money. What a beautiful system! |
|
|
|
Headline: Liberal Blowhard Russell Brand Throws A Hissy Fit After Being Confronted About The Price Of His Home Newsworthy Factor: 0 Journalistic Integrity: 0 Likelihood conservatives repost: 100 Ooooh, this "article" even comes with a solicitation to donate, so they can subject an ever-increasing audience to their very worth-reading journalism! How long until The Blaze picks up this hot story? ------------ Conservative blogspam aside, I actually did learn something from your post. I was previously unfamiliar with the term gauche caviar, and now I'm a little bit smarter! |
|
|
|
Use the formula to come up with your own conspiracy theory for a tragedy that you can think of.
I'll leave that for the folks with nothing better to do than imagine incredible reasons for to explain benign things. I'll just point out that it's a rare instance the highly educated are prone to such folly. |
|
|
|
|
I think your theory of conspiracy theories supposes a lot more forethought to them than they usually get.
|
|
|
|
This is a weird departure from standard practice. Any speculation as to why they would deliberately do this?
A convoluted form of entrapment. I am willing to bet they target "vape" sites primarily. The FDA has shown itself to be little more than a tool of selective enforcement designed to protect industry monopolies. Right, but they were already engaging in entrapment by using people posing as minors. Now they're actually using minors. I'm just wondering why they changed their entrapment program. It seems like a meaningless change, but it was deliberate, so there has to be a reason for it. |
|
|
|
The Blaze. Journalistic integrity at its finest. The blaze tried to mike brown you too? Haha! No, I'm just not high on blogspam (on either side) that takes a story and repackages it into inflammatory material to feed a particular base's rigid mindset. The Blaze is certainly one of those. The left has their share of them too. They're just obnoxious articles that add very little, if any, value to what are important conversations. There was a time when the news was about informing people, now its just about marketing and clicking on ads. The news outlets will print anything to get you to look. I agree. Media is a business, and the purpose of owning a business is to make money. Any cable media is no longer in the business of reporting news, but spinning news to press their viewers' preconceived rage points. Then there is another step to the extreme in websites like The Blaze that really whore themselves out to get you to click that link. You can tell how much integrity one of these 'news' sites has by how often they use subjective adjectives in their headlines. For example, "Absolutely Disgusting" might be something that appears in a headline about the behavior of a black shopper to get conservative minded folks to click through and see for themselves just how disgusting some people are. (See the previous Blaze link if you want to see for yourself!) The problem is these headlines work. They make a ton of money. That's why there's so many of them. And that is why we have a brain and sort out or believe what we want and reject what we do not want. I would copy paste a few lines and and always give credit by adding a link to the original source where I saw that information. In this case you could bypass the blaze and just watch the video while getting some context. Then not trusting the blaze you could google/duck duck go/ bling that youtube video and read the behind the scene of that video. Maybe there was an personal history between the cop and the dude on the video being "mike browned", before. Obviously most people do not care and are too lazy to do too much research and prefer to trust the main stream media, the one that makes the most money with the most advertising. That is their choice and is perfectly acceptable too If people were interested in unbiased information, something like The Blaze wouldn't exist. People don't want that though. They want pieces that make them feel superior to groups they view as inferior, so they can post them wherever and rant about how terrible some groups are for doing or thinking [insert racial or political stereotype here]. The Blaze is worst than most because it foments division and hatred by playing on racial undertones, otherwise there'd by no reason to point out the race of people they're writing about in the headlines. 'Check out the disgusting way this black shopper acted around this cop' or whatever the headline was. The point isn't that some guy was disrespectful to a cop, it's that he's black and he's acting in a way you should hate. The headline tells you that much. My question is, if you know a site is a disgraceful click monger and their presentation of information is so biased and serves no legitimate news function, why do you post them? Even if, as you say, people have brains and can decide for themselves if a source is worthy? If you're posting it and saying 'Decide for yourself if this is relevant information,' then it just looks like you're posting things you agree approve of. And in the case of this specific Blaze story, the story trying to appeal to people on the basis of 'look at this ridiculous black guy' is what's disgusting. |
|
|
|
Yeah, maybe he just needed something more visual to understand how it happens  Notice none of those visuals helped your point. Actually, the absence of all those things in the US economy further prove mine. Tangential anecdote: I bought some of those Zimbabwe 100 Trillion dollar notes as a novelty (and a reminder of the dangers of loose monetary policy) after Zimbabwe discontinued them. I literally have 4 quadrillion dollars.  |
|
|
|
Okay, let me put it this way, do you know about reserve ratios? Before the dollar used to be backed by gold but now we don't even know where that gold is and countries are demanding it back, that means that all the paper money being printed is going to become worthless, not only that we don't actually genuinely know how much tonnage of gold the federal reserve and the U.S government has but I can tell you for certain the paper to gold reserve ratio is not 1:1.
That is what hyperinflation is and that is the problems we're having with our economies, we're getting it here in the UK too, Gordon Brown went and sold off 40% of our gold reserves so that will have meant an instant devaluation of the pound and as for the prices being on the high side with the stock markets, you're forgetting how high things went in 2008 - 2009 when everything came crashing down.
Yes, I take the point about reserve ratios well, especially how fractional reserve banking increases the money supply (if that's the point you're making). But you still don't use the word "hyperinflation" to describe ordinary inflation. For hyperinflation to exist, prices have to hyperinflate, and they're just not. They weren't in 2008 and they're not now. All the theory about what brings about hyperinflation is rather worthless in the face of what actually happens in the real world, and there is no hyperinflation in the equity markets, the money supply, or consumer prices. Not to say I'm defending a loose monetary policy. I'm just objecting to characterizing something as hyperinflation that clearly isn't. |
|
|
|
The Blaze. Journalistic integrity at its finest. The blaze tried to mike brown you too? Haha! No, I'm just not high on blogspam (on either side) that takes a story and repackages it into inflammatory material to feed a particular base's rigid mindset. The Blaze is certainly one of those. The left has their share of them too. They're just obnoxious articles that add very little, if any, value to what are important conversations. There was a time when the news was about informing people, now its just about marketing and clicking on ads. The news outlets will print anything to get you to look. I agree. Media is a business, and the purpose of owning a business is to make money. Any cable media is no longer in the business of reporting news, but spinning news to press their viewers' preconceived rage points. Then there is another step to the extreme in websites like The Blaze that really whore themselves out to get you to click that link. You can tell how much integrity one of these 'news' sites has by how often they use subjective adjectives in their headlines. For example, "Absolutely Disgusting" might be something that appears in a headline about the behavior of a black shopper to get conservative minded folks to click through and see for themselves just how disgusting some people are. (See the previous Blaze link if you want to see for yourself!) The problem is these headlines work. They make a ton of money. That's why there's so many of them. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
